extremist government
Standard dictionary definitions of democracy:
- A form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people collectively, and is administered by them or by officers appointed by them.
- The common people.
- A state of society characterised by recognition of equality of rights and privileges for all people.
- Political, social or legal equality.
It seems that the current UK government is redefining the definition of democracy to one which stipulates that you have the liberty to voice anything you like, and vote for whatever you like, so long as your views align with theirs, and that you support their agenda, lest you are branded an extremist.
It is now a crime to question British values, institutions, and the government’s own self-serving interpretation of democracy. They are discreetly embedding into law ‘secular blasphemy’, where challenging their agenda is a punishable offence. Considering this in light of the global environmental crisis – if governments do not radically change their short-term preoccupation with power and profit, there won’t be a planet on which to impose such totalitarian statutes.
The irony is that extremism is now defined as any belief or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, its institutions and the rule of law. A definition which is itself a blatant attack on the very understanding of democracy and liberty that the government is supposedly designed to protect.
Over the decades, western governments, including the UK, have condemned such measures as anti-democratic and against human rights, citing China as an example of an oppressive regime by drawing on the thousands of political prisoners that voiced an opinion contrary to that of the state. Yet here we are, the UK government silencing any form of dissent with the threat of imprisonment.
The phrase, “Democracy may not be perfect, but it’s still better than the rest”, is too often quoted as a justification for its failings, but it also reflects a lack of imagination or desire to consider a better approach to responsibility. The main problem of politics is the very notion of power. When power becomes an objective, as it is with democracy, then it also becomes the main focus of those who have it, or those who want it, and the actual function of being in power – namely caring for the citizens and their future – becomes a side issue. This recent move to criminalise the right to question the actions and motives of the government exemplifies why power should be taken out of the equation, because vilifying dissent is simply protecting one’s position of power, rather than satisfying the responsibility that should accompany it.
what it really means
Undermining fundamental British values
‘British values’ simply refer to a generalised impression of what Britain looks like, and all that makes it look like it does. The inclusion of ‘value’ suggests that this impression is desirable, and therefore not to be undermined. However, these values have had a devastating effect on the planet, causing untold suffering to millions of people, and have destroyed the majority of the natural biosphere, which is essential for the continuation of life. This new legislation is designed to resist any acknowledgement of that reality, and preserve the political system so that those who profit from it can continue to do so unchallenged. It is straightforwardly an abuse of power; denying us, as citizens, a voice to express our concerns and dissatisfaction at the government’s complete disregard for the responsibility that their position demands.
We value something because it’s precious, and therefore worth protecting. There is nothing more precious than life itself, and so governments cannot take ownership of the word value when they are directly responsible for destroying it.
Democracy
This new and extreme legislation is a deliberate move to suppress the fundamental principles of democracy: the freedom of speech, and the right to demonstrate. Nobody would object if everything was fine, so criminalising dissent and denying citizens the right to protest is, by its very intent, undemocratic. Despite the many shortcomings inherent in democracy as a suitable system for managing human affairs, governments cannot claim to be democratic if they forcibly silence their citizens.
Extremist Ideologies
We should be concerned about all intolerant ideologies, because, by their very ambitions, they are dogmatic and unyielding, limited and manipulative. But that is the issue with all beliefs, it is just a matter of semantics whether we use belief or ideology. Tolerating another’s belief is just tacitly agreeing with it. The moment we surrender to a belief, we become imprisoned both physically and mentally by its inherent limitations. The only reason we might willingly acquiesce to such a sentence is because we have been tempted by the vague promises that are a feature of all beliefs, be they religious or secular.
At a time in human history when our very survival is under threat because of the values and beliefs we currently hold, having a belief in anything is going to restrict our opportunity to alter that fate. Our greatest survival attribute is that of adaptability – the remarkable facility to rapidly adjust to changing conditions – but it is one that is completely incompatible with belief.
June 2024